In the Face of the Feed Crisis, Beef Expert Claims Ruminants Can Digest “Anything”

Yesterday as I was driving home from taking my son to school, a report on NPR about the issues with the rising cost of feeding commercial cattle in today’s wavering economic market made my blood boil.

What I heard made me realize the issues we are having with GMOs in our food supply are compounding due to the fact that the industry which relies almost solely on corn, grain, and soy to feed cattle will stop at nothing to cut costs and convince the public at the same time that these methods and activities are not only safe but necessary to “feed the world”.

It also made me realize the industrial food industry will also stop at nothing to reassure the public that their far-fetched and wholly unsafe practices are not only just fine but somehow “better for the environment”… including, telling lie upon ludicrous lie to get it done with false science and bad political maneuvering.

“Alternatives” to corn, soy, and grain

The discussion went into how droughts and wildfires, which have ravaged range lands this season, are forcing farmers to look for more “efficient ways” to feed their cattle. According to the report, beef scientist Tim DelCurto from Oregon State University has alternatives for ranchers and feedlot owners that provide lower cost feed now that corn and soy prices are skyrocketing. These include:

DelCurto believes that ruminants can easily adapt to other feed and it doesn’t affect their health. He said, “I think one of the unique attributes of beef cattle, and sheep fit this too, unique attributes of ruminant animals is that they can digest virtually anything.”

This month, DelCurto will speak at several University of Idaho Extension classes where he will be sharing these “cost saving tips” with cattle ranchers.

It is this twisted way of thinking which has ushered in the predominance of antibiotic and hormone use in commercial cattle farming today, which has greatly contributed to inflammatory disease in both cattle and humans, including digestive, endocrine, and auto-immune disorders, antibiotic resistance, and super bug bacteria which can’t be managed by normal medical care.

It is beyond shameful that we are allowing our universities to be used to support big agriculture’s agendas, which for decades have had negative consequences for our food system, health, and environment.

Other news reports have been flooding the wires over the couple of weeks about the use of even more unsavory substances for feeding cattle as a way to counter the effects of rising feed costs:

These substances are being used as alternatives to the starchy corn, soy, and grain feeds used by conventional farming facilities to put weight on cattle. All of these alternatives to soy, corn, and grain are highly processed and many are by-products of the commercial farming, food, and chemical industries…and many of these contain GMOs as well. Really? Cookies and gummy worms?

It should go without saying, but these “experts” and “scientists” have it all wrong. It’s absolutely unthinkable that anyone calling themselves a caretaker of the environment or steward of the land would even suggest the preposterous notion of feeding cattle these kinds of substances is acceptable. Does it really seem reasonable that animals being slaughtered for meat should be fed these substances? And if they are allowed to consume them, what affect might that have on their health, and our health when we eat the meat from these animals? Our ancestors would have never agreed to this practice.

These measures used by the food industry are not about taking care of the health and well-being of anything or anyone involved, they are about profits.

The GMO factor

Corn, soy, and grains are not healthy feed for cattle, which are ruminants and are intended to graze on green grass. Even without the GM component, these feeds cause health problems for animals consuming them. Cattle who eat this kind of feed develop acidity in the digestive tract, and because cattle become vulnerable to disease and sickness, farmers administrate antibiotics.

A recent study showing the results of a life-time of feeding rats a certain type of genetically engineered corn common in the U.S. food supply looks even more unfavorable. These findings were published in the peer-reviewed journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, and showed the development of massive tumors in the bodies of rats and also included liver and kidney damage, and premature death. There have been over 30 additional studies showing the presence of toxic or allergic reactions in animals consuming GE foods.

It may seem like if these issues were such a threat, you’d see people dying of premature death everywhere. But consider that rats don’t live very long, their life span is at most 3-4 years. Human life spans are much longer, the average being about 75. The fact is, many people are experiencing chronic health issues that have not been seen before on the scale that degenerative disease is occurring, but are being allowed to continue living through the intervention of drugs, surgeries, and other medical procedures. Genetic engineering is a relatively new development, but GMOs have been in our food supply now since 1996. The long-term effects of consuming GE foods simply aren’t known yet.

Meanwhile, Monsanto and other seed companies are working night and day trying to get more GM crops approved. Mounting evidence is showing that GE crops are failing to live up to the hype that has been propagated about their “benefits”.

Informed scientists such as Dr. Donald Huber have spoken and written about the dire consequences of chemical-based monoculture crops which degenerate soil integrity. His research shows that GE crops cause even more harm to the soil than conventional farming. GE farming uses the application of broad-spectrum herbicides on the genetically engineered mono-crops, resulting in herbicide-resistant super-weeds. These plants are just about impossible to destroy. Ronnie Cummins from The Organic Consumer’s Association stated: “Scientists estimate that herbicide-resistant crops planted around the globe will triple the amount of toxic broad-spectrum herbicides used in agriculture”.

It should be easy to see the failure of this chemical system in the destruction of vital soil for supporting life, the lack of diversity in continued monoculture crops, the loss of heirloom and indigenous seeds that have been traditionally saved and planted in successive seasons, and the massive debt piled upon tens of thousands of farmers who use these programs to grow their crops and support their families (and who are beholden to Monsanto and other seed companies due to strict contracts they sign).

What’s the alternative?

Joel Salatin, grassfed beef farmer in Swope, VA has explained the virtues of grassfeeding ruminant animals, and pasture-raising other livestock such as pigs. Instead of mass-scale factory farming that pollutes the environment, soil, water, and harms human and animal health, he advocates for smaller-scale farming that utilizes nature to support the ecosystem of the farm. Salatin’s 100 acre organic spread thrives on the symbiotic relationship between the grazing cattle and roaming chickens to provide nourishment to the land and themselves. This type of farming can and does quite well without hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, and GMOs.

Stanley Fishman of Tender Grassfed Meat has an excellent post describing how properly managed grassfed farms can produce healthy meat for people to eat. Not only can the farms thrive, they can help with water supply issues which are becoming an increasing excuse for chemical and seed companies to engineer toxic alternatives to traditional farming.

“The world’s water supply can be greatly increased by increasing the number of grazing animals, and having them follow proper grazing practices. Not only will this greatly increase the water supply, but it will result in the creation of great amounts of new soil suitable for growing crops, and increase the size and richness of grasslands, allowing even more herds to graze. And the grassfed meat made available by following this path will provide the food that is far more nutrient-dense and nourishing than a plant-only diet.”

There are also other farmers who are finding ways to keep their stock on range lands and grazing, while preserving the ecology, as nature intended. In southeast Oregon, ranchers are embracing the natural landscapes and allowing their cattle to roam on desert areas, eating high-desert grasses.

In Simon Fairlie’s book, Meat: A Benign Extravagence, he devotes a considerable amount of discussion about small-scale, holistic meat farming and how we can continue to feed the growing populations of the world. This book so succinctly and profoundly lays out the methods and mechanisms by which we should undertake humane and smaller-scale meat production, George Monbiot, environmental activist and vegan, regarded this book as a life-changing read and discarded his support for veganism after reading it.

What can you do?

Supporting our local, grassfed meat farmers which contribute positively to the ecosystem and local economies instead of GMO and commercial farming is imperative. If we don’t abandon these toxic, modern systems of food production, we will wipe out our fertile soil and ability to produce food for the future.

Be aware of the fact that 90 percent or more of foods you buy at the store probably contain GMOs. Read labels and avoid these products as best you can. Avoid buying grocery store meats from unhealthy animals, which are full of antibiotics, hormones, and residue from pesticides, GMOs, and other toxic chemicals.

10 Comments

Yeesh, if they are going to go for the “feed them anything” approach, they may as well change over to pigs. Even though I’d worry about the pigs eating such things, it would better fit their idea of animals which can eat anything.

Maybe it’s another sign of how poorly we’re doing as a nation with science education. As well as the food disconnect people have now.

This article just shows how ignorant the general public is to the capabilities and adaptability of the animals known s ruminants. All foods are made up of the same basic elements just arranged in different chemical configurations.

The cow and other amazing ruminants have the unique ability to utilize a vast array out feedstuffs. To imply that gummy bears or any othe digestible material is someway harmful to a cow is ludicrous in itself.
The cow does not digest this material but rather the bacteria and protozoa that live in this amazing ruminant digest this material and convert it to substrates that can be and are digested efficiently in the rest of their digestive system.

They are broken down into the same basic substrates as grass while in the rumen.

It would nice if all of you zealots would at least try to understand the basics of ruminant digestion before you lie about things you know little to nothing about other than what you read off of some other zealots blog.

By the way these highly digestible materials are fed as a supplement not as the whole diet of a cow. For goodness sakes please research what you blather on about.

I heard a quote a long time ago that I’ll share. “Some people are wrapped so tightly in their beliefs that not even the truth will set them free”. I’m afraid you and anyone how falls for your grossly inaccurate story are at this point in your belief.

Don’t worry, I do know quite a bit about this topic. This is my job and I do this type of research and writing for a living. It’s unfortunate for anyone to defend the act of feeding industrial chemicals to animals – who have never before in history eaten these substances. Traditional farming history shows this to be true. It wasn’t until these types of feeds were given to cattle that farmers started administering antibiotics and other medications on a “therapeutic” basis in the first place.

There is work being done all over the world with organizations such as The Savory Institute who show that holistic management of livestock can and is done to keep animals healthy and heal the land at the same time. I saw Andrea Malmberg from the Institute speak last fall at the Weston A. Price Conference in CA, and showed how the holistic model works. You can find all kinds of information on this subject on their web site and also the Savory Institute about holistic farming and the success that has been had with these methods.

It doesn’t matter whether these are supplemental types of feed or the main feed – the fact is, all of these substances – those I listed here as well as the conventional types of feeds I also mentioned – soy, corn, and grain are not meant to be digested by cattle and certain other types of livestock.

Please also read Simon Fairlie’s book Meat: A Benign Extravagance. He goes into great detail about the benefits of grassland grazing to the animals, the environment, and human beings. In no way shape or form would he or anyone who knows anything about holistic and natural management of cattle recommend feeding them soy, corn, grains, or any of the other industrial garbage you have stated that is “just fine” to consume. Fairlie’s book backs up what the Savory Institute is doing as well, as he talks in depth about the research done by Allan Savory, a biologist whose name was used for the Institute. The rotation of stock on grasslands for an appropriate amount of time maintains health in the land and the ecology – as he details.

What you recommend causes sickness, premature death of animals. There is plenty of evidence of this happening from instances such as the early days of slop dairies in the east when population growth took a sudden spurt and producers began feeding cattle unimaginable substances in dairies and feedlot environments to save costs. Surely you’ve heard of the downer cattle in these facilities, which have been shown on film many times, and also are familiar with the frequency of meat recalls in our culture. Meat recalls happen more and more, and pathogenic bacteria are being found in samples of this type of meat regularly (just check the news reports). You won’t find those kinds of bacteria in sustainable produced meat and you don’t see that type of meat on recall lists. I challenge you to look at the recall lists and show me any truly sustainable meat products on those lists. And that doesn’t mean the big, corporate organic meat producers as they are subject to the same issues most other commercial facilities are.

You only “research” is from like minded sources. I’ll leave with another quote “never argue with an idiot they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience”. With that I do not think you are not intelligent I think quite the opposite. By the way before we had antibiotics cattle used to die from the most minor infections. I also agree that grazing is what a cow does best. In fact I am very good at and produce your precious grassfed beef. I’ve also done it long enough to know that I will never make any money doing it. That’s not sustainable! I also know the zealots will just say your not doing it correctly but I can’t control the weather nor can I control what the public will pay for it.

I appreciate your dedication to your beliefs but you are way wrong on this one. I also worked with Savory several years back. All sounds great in theory but it worked so great why isn’t it what Savory does rather than go around telling the rest of us how to do it.

You really have no idea about any other research I’ve done on this subject. I’ve read all the research showing that cattle can eat other substances without issue, from big universities and laboratories. What I’ve learned is that research from these sources is always slanted, and funded by corporations who desire a certain outcome to prove the worthiness of what they do and sell. That’s not real science. If you don’t agree with this post, you are free to not read any of the other material I’ve posted here. In fact, if you don’t agree and think I am un-intelligent, I really don’t know why you are still here commenting in the first place. I’m definitely not looking for your approval.

Saying that all university research is slanted and bias is a blatant and uninformed response. You have categorically dismissed an entire body of research without one shred of evidence to support your claim, particularly in the field of animal nutrition.

Looking through the writings of someone like Savory is not research. Taking the word of one person is not even good journalism. I’m not niave enough to think your story involved a thorough review of the literature as it was obviously written with a bias and an agenda of your own.
By the way I never implied you were unintelligent. In fact that is what is so frustrating with this type of writing. You unintentionally give out horribly inaccurate information based on a standing bias.

We are biased but some just refuse to recognize it or admit it. And it affects them in a negative way.